 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
The reliability of the book of Daniel as a historical and prophetic document has been debated by Till and Hatcher in prior issues of the skeptical Review. It is impossible in contemporary rhetoric to ascertain what the writer of the book of Daniel either knew or didn't know at the time of the book's composition. However, it is possible to analyze the text and to ascertain what information the author may have wished to convey to the reader. One issue within this debate on Daniel is whether or not the book indicates that Babylon was conquered by a coalition of the Medes and the Persians, as recorded in secular history (New Geneva Study Bible, 1995, p. 1328). Herein, a simple dispensational exegesis of the book of Daniel is used to demonstrate that the book of Daniel clearly records this fact.
Discussion: In simple terms, dispensational theology indicates that some information within the text of the Bible is gradually revealed, i. e., dispensed, in increasing increments as time progresses. However, a quick glance at the book of Daniel indicates that its chapters are not arranged in chronological order. This fact should be of no concern to the modern critic, as neither contemporary fiction nor nonfiction always adheres to a strict chronological structure. Nevertheless, to exegete dispensationally the text of Daniel with reference to the fall of Babylon, it is useful to arrange some chapters within the book chronologically. The debate over the date of writing of the book of Daniel is not discussed in detail herein. Simply, the chapters within the text are arranged according to references within the text itself.
The first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon was 605 B. C. (Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings," Time-Life Books, 1995, p. 145); thus, the events in the second chapter of Daniel, which transpired "in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign" (v:1), are ascribed to 604 B. C. The rule of Nabonidus, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, began in 556 B.C. (C. F. Pfeiffer, Old Testament History, Baker, 1973, p. 455). At some point Nabonidus left for Arabia and gave authority to rule to his son Belshazzar ("Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings," p. 148). The historical record suggests that Belshazzar was co-regent with Nabonidus since the third year of his reign (Pfeiffer, p. 458). Thus, it is assumed herein that the events in chapter seven of Daniel, which transpired "in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon" (v:1), can be assigned to about 554 B.C. The events in chapter eight of Daniel, which transpired "in the third year of Belshazzar king of Babylon" (v:1), are therefore assigned to 552 B. C. The feast described in chapter five, which culminated in the death of Belshazzar, is ascribed to 539 B. C. (New Geneva Bible, p. 1328).
604 B. C.: In chapter 2 of the book of Daniel, Daniel records Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image (vs:31-33):
You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image's head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
The great image, according to Daniel, was symbolic of four kingdoms: the kingdom of Babylon was the head of gold (v:38), the subsequent kingdom was of silver (v:39), the third kingdom was of bronze (Daniel 2:39), and the fourth kingdom was of iron. Although Daniel described many events concerning the time of the kingdom of iron, little information is provided at this time about the kingdoms of silver and bronze.
554 B.C.: Approximately 50 years after the interpretation of this vision, Daniel records that he had a vision of four beasts (7:4-7):
The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: "Arise, devour much flesh!" After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly, strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet.
By simple comparative inference with Daniel chapter 2, it is probable that the four beasts of chapter 7 are symbolic of the four kingdoms described in chapter 2. A reasonable postulate is that the fourth beast, with "huge iron teeth," is identical to the fourth kingdom, which is "as strong as iron." Granted this parallel, the kingdom of Babylon is the head of gold, as well as the lion with eagle's wings; the second kingdom is the chest and arms of silver, as well as the bear raised up on one side; and the third kingdom is the midsection of bronze, as well as the leopard.
552 B. C.: Approximately two years after his vision of the four beasts, Daniel received a vision of a ram and a goat (8:3-7):
Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand.
The link in this vision to the preceding vision of the four beasts is the symbolic similarity between the two horns of the ram, of which "one was higher than the other," and the tilt of the bear, which "was raised up on one side." Both images reveal a united kingdom of two unequal parts. Thus, the second kingdom is the chest and arms of silver, the bear raised up on one side, and the ram of two unequal horns. Later in the account of the vision, it is revealed to Daniel that "the ram which you saw, having the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia" (8:20).
Therefore, according to the book of Daniel, by about 552 B. C., Daniel had received enough information to know (or at least believe) that the kingdom of Babylon (the head of gold) would be conquered by the united forces of the Medes and the Persians (the kingdom of silver).
539 B. C.: It is reasonable to assume that, given this prophecy about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians, Daniel would have maintained enough interest to at least inquire on occasion about the status of these peoples. Possibly, the news of Cyrus's rise to power in 550 B. C. would have caught his interest. Maybe, he would have heard news of the conquest by the Medo-Persian empire of Lydia in 546 B. C. Possibly, Daniel would have wondered if Lydia and Babylon were two of the three ribs (conquests) in the mouth of the bear. Regardless, even a cursory reading of Daniel 5:13-29 indicates the contempt that Daniel had for Belshazzar in 539 B. C. His ease in interpretation of the writing on the wall was in a sense merely a fulfillment of an expectation that he had undoubtedly had for the preceding 13 years. With Babylon under siege by the forces of the Medes and the Persians, Daniel simply proclaimed: "Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians" (v:28).
Stumbling Blocks: Although the preceding dispensational exegesis of the book of Daniel illustrates that within the text it is obvious that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian empire in 539 B. C., some critics have problems with this view. One stumbling block has been the statement that "Darius the Mede received the kingdom" (v:31). However, it is known from extra-Biblical sources that Cyrus the Persian was not present at Babylon on the day that it fell to the Medo-Persian army (Pfeiffer, p. 505). Therefore, it is a simple deduction that someone had to rule over Babylon in his absence. According to the book of Daniel, this individual was Darius the Mede. Chapters 5, 6, 9, and 11 in the book of Daniel only refer to the first year of Darius the Mede. Though in contemporary logic one might infer that the statement "first year" implies intended subsequent years of reign, this inference does not mandate that any subsequent years of reign actually occurred. As a contemporary example, one might state that Kennedy was assassinated in the third year of his Presidency. Although, had he not been assassinated, he likely would have served his entire term, his death brought an end to his reign in less than three years. Likewise, it is fully reasonable to suggest that the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon at some time after the fall of Babylon resulted in the end of the interim reign of Darius the Mede. It is also possible that Darius the Mede continued to reign in Babylon during and after the arrival of Cyrus, though presumably with less authority than Cyrus.
In addition, it has been claimed that mention in the book of Daniel of Darius the Mede (5:31; 11:1), a.k.a., Darius the son of Ahasuerus (9:1), was actually a reference to king Darius of Persia (Till, "What Daniel Didn't Know," TSR, July/August 1999, p. 3) and is thus a historical error. It must be stressed that whenever an apparent contradiction or error appears during an investigation, either the evidence being investigated, the interpretation of that evidence, or both the evidence and the interpretation, are wrong. In the case of the mention of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel, the evidence suggests that the skeptical criticism and not the text is in error, i. e., errare humanum est! References to Darius in Ezra (4:5; 4:24; 5:5-7; 6:1; 6:12-15), Haggai (1:1; 1:15; 2:10), and Zechariah (1:1; 1:7; 7:1) likely refer to Darius I (Hystaspes) of Persia (The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990, p. 239). The reference to Darius in Nehemiah 12:22 is likely to Darius II (Nothus) of Persia (Strong's, p. 239). The books of Haggai and Zechariah were most likely written near 520 B. C. (New Geneva Bible, pp. 1459, 1464). In addition, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah can be dated to roughly 430-400 B. C. (New Geneva Bible, p. 646). Considering that Daniel first went to Babylon as a young man (e.g., 15 years old) in 605 B. C. (Daniel 1:3-4), and remained there at least until the third year of king Cyrus in 537 B. C. (10:1), it is reasonable to assume that he was roughly 83 years old in 537 B. C. Consequently, it is highly probable that Daniel died prior to 520 B. C., in which his age could have been about 100 years old. Therefore, if Daniel (the presumed author of the book of Daniel) did indeed compose the text attributed to him, it is reasonable to assume that he did not have the books of Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah and Nehemiah in his possession at the time of the composition of the text. However, the Hebrew canon was translated into Greek during the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter and II Philadelphus prior to 270 B. C. (L. C. L. Brenton, "Introduction," The Septuagint with Apocrypha; Greek and English, pp. i-ii). If an unknown Jewish author of the second century B. C. Maccabean period actually wrote the book of Daniel, then it is reasonable to assume that he had the books of Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah and Nehemiah in his possession at the time of the composition of the text. Therefore, the probability is quite absurd that, equipped with the Jewish canon in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, the unknown Maccabean author would accidentally introduce Darius the Persian as Darius the Mede into the text at a time period when he did not exist.
Granted the unwarranted skepticism to the Bible, is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence that Darius the Mede did not exist ca. 539 B. C.? Has any archaeologist ever unearthed and published a name frequency, probability, and distribution study of the Medo- Persian Empire? Was a census of the Medo-Persian empire recorded at that time? Does it exist today? Simply, there is no credible, objective, extra-Biblical evidence at this time which refutes the existence of Darius the Mede in 539 B. C. However, there is credible, objective, extra-Biblical evidence which supports the existence of Darius the Mede in 539 B. C. In the 1st century A. D., the historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the fall of Babylon:
And this is the end of the posterity of king Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs us; but when Babylon was taken by Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks (Antiquities, 10:11.4).
There are several important references in this passage by Josephus, the first of which is the statement that Darius (in this case Darius the Mede) and Cyrus (Cyrus the Persian) were kinsmen, i. e., relatives. Second, Josephus wrote that Darius was the son of Astyages, i. e., the last king of the Medes (See http://www. graphichistory.com/b05wcpomil.htm). In order to reconcile this text in Josephus with a related text in Daniel 9:1, which refers to Darius as the son of Ahasuerus, it is necessary to provide evidence that the father of Darius could have been known by at least two different names. A quick perusal of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1990, p. 28) reveals that the name Ahasuerus was used to refer to king Cambyses of Persia (Ezra 4:6), king Xerxes of Persia (Esther 1:1), and the father of Darius the Mede (Daniel 9:1). Thus, it is probable that the name Ahasuerus could have been a general name or title applied to some kings at that time and place in history, and that the more specific name of the father of Darius the Mede was Astyages. In this case, it is of interest to note that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus the Persian, a.k.a. Cyrus the Great (http://www.parspage.com/history/iran. htm). Therefore, it is possible that Darius the Mede was the uncle of Cyrus the Persian. At this suggestion, a skeptic might argue that it is highly unlikely for Darius the Mede, who was roughly 62 years old in 539 B.C. (Daniel 5:31), to be the uncle of Cyrus the Persian, who was roughly 60 years old in 539 B.C. (see www.graphichistory. com). However, even I (the author of this manuscript) have a cousin whose youngest son is only two years older than his (the son's) nephew; therefore, the situation is indeed probable.
Summary: When read in the context of the entire book, there is no objective evidence that the author of the book of Daniel believed that Babylon fell only to the Medes. Through use of the chronology inherent to the book of Daniel, a simple dispensational exegesis was used herein to demonstrate the gradual, but clear, revelation that the kingdom of Babylon would and did fall to the Medo-Persian empire. There is no compelling extra-Biblical evidence that Darius the Mede did not exist in 539 B. C., nor is there objective evidence that the writer of the book of Daniel believed that Darius the Mede was actually Darius the Persian. Rather, there is reason to believe that Darius the Mede was an actual historical figure, and possibly that he was the uncle of Cyrus the Persian.
Conclusion: "Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if anyone is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me" (Josephus, Antiquities, 10:11.7).
(Michael C.J. Bradford, Ph.D., 12 Clematis Avenue, Waltham, MA 02453; e-mail, mbradford@ceramem.com)
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright
© Internet Infidels 1995-2002. All rights reserved. |
Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:30 CST
